Agreed. Dear cult, there is this thing called a light source. Ignore it at your peril when you try to fake photographs.
I think scientology needs to do some fact checking about its potential audience reach before it thinks about releasing such freedumb mag batshittery for public consumption. Scientology lacks a real life sense of proportion. Youtube search on scientology, 30th August 2011, sorted by videos, relevance, anytime, All categories.... Amazon.com best sellers in the Religion & Sprituality>>Other Practices>>Scientology sub-category 30th August 2011
and he's often in the Featured Videos section at the top. I just searched again, and there he is, right at the top. lol.
What is the circulation of FreeDumb magazine, compared to the New Yorker or Village Voice?? I need to LAUGH MOAR at the stupid clams.
Exposé: The truth comes out. The article entitled "Water is Wet" was written by a criminal. Furthermore, 87% of that article's 4760 facts presented were so off base as to be considered "way off base". Let me not dignify those facts or mine with an explanation or analysis. Nor should I sink to identifiying them. Did I mention that one of the sources of the article is not universally acclaimed as the best film director, ever? Ok. Have you seen LRH's films? Never mind. I think there is no longer any need for anyone to give the proposition that "Water is Wet" any further thought or credit.
Seriously, somebody needs to tell Dave that there are differences between a video audience and the sheeple he delivers his hourlong drivels to. I tried to watch the freedom flics but gave up after 3 minutes. Unbearable.
David Miscavige is probably the worst video cameraman and video editor there is. All that money, the best equipment, and working with video for 40 years, and this is the best shit he can come up with?? He's a complete ass-tool. He's a fun-sized talentless fuckwit.
Excerpt from page 7: Really? Really? After, "...a scene weighted with symbolism." you still think you have to explain that it's a metaphor for burning bridges? Writer should word-clear "subtly".
Thanks for posting these. Here they are in one post: Cover: http://i.imgur.com/67RPA.jpg Page 1 "The New Yorker: What a Load of Balderdash": http://i.imgur.com/gn0Js.jpg Page 2 "A 24,000-Word Odyssey to Nowhere": http://i.imgur.com/eMMAo.jpg Page 3 "Fact Checks or Checkered Facts?": http://i.imgur.com/NXqoB.jpg Page 4 "People May Lie, Numbers Don't": http://i.imgur.com/3ZXtN.jpg Page 5 "Web of Deceit": http://i.imgur.com/By6z4.jpg Page 6 "Between the Covers": http://i.imgur.com/wtX6E.jpg Page 7 "The Hypocrate of Hollywood": http://i.imgur.com/n0nbp.jpg Page 8 "The Anonymous Connection": http://i.imgur.com/5elod.jpg MOD NOTE: Added to OP
I'm really looking forward to Lawrence Wright's upcoming book about the whole Haggis vs cult drama. the anti-Scientology market is a growing industry. anonymous has made it cool to know all about this sexy cult.
Oh no they didn't http://www.observer.com/2011/08/sci...yorker-pamphlets-outside-conde-nast-building/
<bows> They are nothing if not predictable. We are trying to scramble someone out there for pics. If anyone else can get out there, please do.
Ah, good, see pic here: http://animalnewyork.com/2011/08/scientologists-defile-eustace-tilley-for-new-yorker-parody-mag/
I do remember the cult doing their own "profile" on paul haggis after crash in their celebrity mag. It would be interesting to see how to praise him for his work, and now how to talk shit about it after he left. Maybe back to back in a video or something. I mean the work remains unchanged despite his change of faith, so why the change of heart?
This would be great. A highly effective and way to criticize an organization is to point out that it contradicts itself. Leads one to wonder about their ulterior motives, and illustrates their intellectual dishonesty.
I used to work for conde nast but don't know anyone in that building anymore. And if you've emailed me to see whether I could pick up a dvd, I'll say here that I'm nowhere near there today.
" ...Esquire's Mark Warren called Wright's article boring, which is charitable." - from the Fleecedom Magazine article I don't know who Mark Warren is but one wonders if they would quote him in the future if Mr. Warren ever wrote a critical piece on the cult. As for the article being boring; then the question is, "Then why go to all that trouble to refute a boring article that supposedly nobody would bother reading?". If you want to see boring, read a Scientology publication like Freedom Magazine. Perhaps the article was "boring" because we are talking Scientology which is very boring. It is hard to make hot air and nonsense exciting or interesting. The boring facts are this; it's a scam and a brainwashing cult that has it's own boring "language" and a staff of diehards who work to bore their enemies and critics to death.
Scientologists Made a Mock New Yorker Magazine NY Mag 31st August 2011 http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/scientologists_made_a_mock-new.html
